TULA RAM CHAUDHARI Vs. BDEBI DATT CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal-in a suit brought for realisation of money due on a mortgage. The mortgage was executed on 27 January 1930, for a sum of Rs. 1000 and carried interest at 9 per cent. per annum. The defendant had been regularly paying the interest up to 27 July 1987. The defendant claimed that he was an agriculturist and was entitled to the benefit of Section 34, Agriculturists Relief Act, and Section 9, Debt Redemption Act. The suit was decreed by the lower Courts and the decree was modified by this Court, with the result that the plaintiff was granted a decree for Rs. 741-10-0 together with pendente lite and future interest at three and a half per cent. per annum and proportionate costs. Two objections have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The first objection is that the defendant being an agriculturist, as the plaintiff did not send accounts for the years 1935, 1986 or 1937 under the provisions of Section 34, Sub-section (c), Agriculturists Belief Act (XXVII

(27.) of 1934), the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any interest for those years. Section 34, Sub-section (c), however, provides that if the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 32 (1) have not been complied with by the creditor, the Court shall in computing the amount of interest due upon the loan exclude every period for which the creditor has failed to comply with the said provision. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that this sub-section would entitle the Court to disallow interest for the year in which the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 32 (1) had not been complied with, only if the interest had not already been paid and was due, the section would not otherwise be applicable. This appears to us to be a correct interpretation of the subsection. Section 34 deals with accounting between the creditor and the debtor and the mode in which such accounting is said to be done and has provided, in the sub-section, for disallowance of such interest as may be due for the period for which accounts have not been sent. The decision of the learned single Judge on this point is, therefore, correct.

(2.) The other ground raised by the learned Counsel is that the mode of accounting is not correct as the learned Judge has taken the principal sum to be Rs. 1000 and has calculated interest at four and a half per cent and has deducted from the sum total the amount paid, instead of making deductions year by year as each payment was made. It is urged that since the statute has reduced the rate of interest, the amount paid at the old contractual rate in excess of the statutory rate should have been deducted from the principal as and when it was paid.